« Ind. Courts - More on: "Law-related blogging starting to see a coming of age" -- But can a law blogger ever be considered a "journalist"? | Main | Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues two today »
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Ind. Decisions - Tavern shooting appeal rejected
Bryan Corbin of the Evansville Courier& Press writes today on Thursday's NFP opinion in the case of James Durham v. State of Indiana. Some quotes:
INDIANAPOLIS - The Indiana Court of Appeals again has rejected an attempt by a man who opened fire in an Evansville tavern, killing two, to back out of his guilty plea.James E. Durham Jr. is serving a 170-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder in the 2003 shootings.
Durham, who has a history of mental illness, allegedly ranted religious phrases as he opened fire at Stan's Place at 1009 S. Kentucky Ave. with a stolen .40-caliber Glock handgun. After his arrest, during court appearances, Durham declared that he was the biblical King David and cursed at court officials. * * *
The day before the tavern shooting, Durham also shot and critically wounded artist Joseph Scales, leaving him a quadriplegic. Scales died after Durham was incarcerated.
Hospitalized for several months until he was declared mentally competent to stand trial, Durham, in December 2004, went against his attorneys' advice and told the judge that he did not want to raise the insanity defense.
A month later, Durham pleaded guilty, precluding him from receiving a jury trial. Then, in January 2005, Durham tried to back out of his guilty plea, saying he wanted a jury trial after all. But Vanderburgh Circuit Court Judge Carl Heldt denied Durham's request, and his guilty plea stands.
Durham's current attorney appealed. The Indiana Court of Appeals, which had denied Durham's appeal once before, denied it again last week. Writing for the three-judge panel, appeals court Judge Edward Najam found that it was not a "manifest injustice" to prohibit Durham from reneging on his guilty plea.
"Durham was represented by counsel at all times, acknowledged that his counsel had advised against withdrawing the insanity defense, and persisted in his request to withdraw it," Najam wrote in a six-page decision. "On these facts, we cannot say that the trial court's refusal to allow Durham to later withdraw his guilty plea constituted manifest injustice."
Durham's appellate attorney, Matthew Jon McGovern, said he would appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court.
"I think the (original) attorneys in Mr. Durham's case did everything they could do; they had him (mentally) evaluated to make sure he was competent to make decisions. They also encouraged him to pursue the insanity defense," McGovern said.
But while attorneys can advise and strongly urge a client, ultimately the defendant decides whether to plead or not. "The problem with a case like Durham's is there are all kinds of facts floating around that question whether Mr. Durham was making an informed decision or whether mental illness was interfering with that decision - and that's what the appellate courts are sorting out," McGovern said.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 6, 2006 10:48 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions